Italian leader helps dedicate unique Nevada geothermal plant

March 29, 2016 by Scott Sonner
Italian leader helps dedicate unique Nevada geothermal plant
Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval, left, Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, second from left, Enel CEO Francesco Starace and Enel Green Power CEO Francesco Venturini attend an inauguration ceremony at Enel Green Power North America Inc.'s Stillwater Geothermal Plant near Fallon, Nev., on Tuesday, March 29, 2016. The facility is the only geothermal power plant in the world that combines geothermal energy with two kinds of solar technology. (AP Photo/Cathleen Allison)

The Italian premier was in Nevada on Tuesday to attend the formal dedication of the only geothermal power plant in the world that combines geothermal energy with two kinds of solar technology.

Premier Matteo Renzi joined Gov. Brian Sandoval, Sen. Dean Heller and others at the ceremony and tour at the site bordering Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge.

"The future of energy is technology. If we invest in technology, we can create a different world, a new world," Renzi said.

The Stillwater Geothermal Plant was built by Enel Green Power North America Inc. about 75 miles east of Reno. Its corporate headquarters is in Italy.

Enel CEO Francesco Starace said the pioneering technology that combines a solar thermal facility with a geothermal facility increases the amount of energy available while reducing the intermittent nature of renewable sources.

He said production from solar is highest during the sunniest, hottest days when the geothermal production is lower.

"The lessons we are learning at this advanced geothermal-solar facility will be key to the development of other hybrid plants throughout the world," he said.

Italy was the site of the first geothermal experiment a century ago that established the potential to harness renewable energy produced by the steam from hot water beneath the ground.

Renzi's energy-themed visit to the U.S. includes other stops in Chicago, Boston and Washington.

Explore further: Hot rocks: Kenya taps geothermal heat to boost power

Related Stories

Solar, geothermal projects touted at Vegas summit

August 14, 2013

The Obama administration's top land official praised a geothermal electricity project in California's snow-capped mountains as an example for others during a headline appearance at a green energy conference in Las Vegas.

Biden calls for new clean energy policy for US

August 30, 2011

(AP) -- The United States can't lead the world in the 21st century with its current energy policy, Vice President Joe Biden told alternative technology supporters Tuesday at a clean energy summit in Las Vegas.

Recommended for you

Making AI systems that see the world as humans do

January 19, 2017

A Northwestern University team developed a new computational model that performs at human levels on a standard intelligence test. This work is an important step toward making artificial intelligence systems that see and understand ...

Firms push hydrogen as top green energy source

January 18, 2017

Over a dozen leading European and Asian firms have teamed up to promote the use of hydrogen as a clean fuel and cut the production of harmful gasses that lead to global warming.

WhatsApp vulnerable to snooping: report

January 13, 2017

The Facebook-owned mobile messaging service WhatsApp is vulnerable to interception, the Guardian newspaper reported on Friday, sparking concern over an app advertised as putting an emphasis on privacy.

58 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2016
Good stuff. The value of renewables and alternative sources is increased with integration. Separate systems can integrate for synergy, and renewables are ripe for it. And this is what we fear and want to avoid:

http://time.com/4...russels/

http://www.cbsnew...bdeslam/

"It also emerged Thursday that the brothers were part of a plan uncovered earlier this year to try and target a Belgian nuclear facility -- while Khalid was the subject of the international arrest warrant. In December, Belgian security services discovered two men had been secretly videotaping one of the country's senior nuclear scientists."

gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2016
There are no reports of terrorists targeting wind farms or solar PV systems. Guess why.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 29, 2016
Guess why
1- multiple sources requires manpower, time and a sh*t load of evlosives whereas a singular target can be taken with far less manpower, explosives and time

2- wind farms/solar pv farms do not contain the requisite material to be used in dirty bombs, who's effectiveness on the fear scale is outrageous because of idiot fearmongering people like yourself who spread misinformation and don't know WTF they're talking about

https://www.youtu...yv9arXqU

https://www.youtu...rcdMiIGs

https://www.youtu...MRkN99aE

https://www.youtu...Oc3ytqaw

gkam
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 29, 2016
Keep guessing.

Ever been in a nuke plant? No?

Know how they all differ? NO?

What are the differences between the Fukushima GE BWRs and at La Salle?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2016
Keep guessing
provide evidence
Ever been in a nuke plant?
yep!
probably more than you ever have
Know how they all differ?
Yep. better than you, apparently
What are the differences between the Fukushima GE BWRs and at La Salle?
i have a few better questions -
lets check YOUR knowledge

how safe is nuclear energy vs solar roof panels?
how safe is it to be around nuclear energy in the plant?

which has greater exposure: being within 20 meters of the core of a nuke plant or flying at 30,000 (plus) feet for the same time?

which exposure would be greater: being a pilot for an airlines or working at a nuke plant?

if you can answer those with links/references and evidence, it would be nice

i already did answer them
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2016
Better than me? Good!

What are the main design differences between those two old GE BWR facilities I asked about?

You can look it up, but will not understand anything about it. It is The Weakness of Wiki.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2016
"how safe is nuclear energy vs solar roof panels?"

I have asked some folk in Fukushima. I'll get right back to you on that one.

But I strongly suggest you do not read anything from those in the nuke field,whose very existence depend on our continual toying with dangerous technologies.

Your gut reaction is to oppose everything I assert, . . . but we all know about the product of the gut.
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2016
I have asked some folk in Fukushima. I'll get right back to you on that one
so, in other words, you don't know, even though i posted the world statistics to you here: http://phys.org/n...fer.html
But I strongly suggest you do not read anything from those in the nuke field,whose very existence depend on our continual toying with dangerous technologies
you mean like below?
https://www.youtu...yv9arXqU

https://www.youtu...xY-wOrI8

https://www.youtu...rcdMiIGs

https://www.youtu...Zm8XO7Zc

that info above proves you're a fearmongering idiot spreading misinformation and blatant lies

Your gut reaction is to oppose everything I assert
nope. only the lies which i can prove
you know, like above, your "field", your knowledge of nuke safety, THz safety and pretty much everything else i debunked you on
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2016
@liar-kam cont'd
It is The Weakness of Wiki
please note that not one single link refers to wiki, however some actually are used "by" wiki to refute your claims

also note, the PhD in the video's is a specialist working with neutron scattering as well as a real scientists who "works in the field" proving you (again) wrong about your claims re: nukes and it's safety

also note that you have yet to provide a single reputable study to ANY claim you have made wrt your "gut feelings" about nukes

so stop the character assassination, lies, sniping with misinformation and stupidity and post evidence supporting your conclusions.

Your gut reaction is to post how great you were and claim your argument from authority is impeachable, . . . but we all know about the product of the gut. especially when evidence directly refutes your claims from the gut
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2016
Show me the claims I made. Never said anything about being "great", just experienced. And I have proven my experience, to your great dismay and frustration. Shall I go onto each of the items again? NASA? The Air Force Flight Test Center? Senior Engineer for a utility? Consulting to power companies? Power Quality?

Go back and read the comments in my military performance reports.

And why haven't you proven any of your own assertiuons regarding yourself and your alleged daughter?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2016
just experienced
@liar-kam
and as i stated before, this does not make you correct when facing factual evidence that proves you wrong about a topic
that argument is called "argument from authority" and when you're wrong, you are simply wrong, regardless of your credentials/career

the point is not and never has been "that" you did anything (no once really cares, plus Rule 37)

it has always been that you can't actually prove most of your "science" comments with evidence
*************

back to the topic:

how safe is nuclear energy vs solar roof panels?
how safe is it to be around nuclear energy in the plant?

which has greater exposure: being within 20 meters of the core of a nuke plant or flying at 30,000 (plus) feet for the same time?

which exposure would be greater: being a pilot? working for a nuke plant?

so... why haven't you proven ANY of the above with evidence?

and how is proving my daughters PE going to help you prove your argument from authority?
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2016
@liar-kam cont'd
Go back and read the comments in my military performance reports
1- performance reports only prove you were at least capable of doing your job, following orders and not f*cking up
that is all... nothing more

2- none of the military documents prove you were an engineer, nor that you have experience in nuclear energy

3- all of your claims regarding nukes have been debunked with factual evidence from real scientists like PhD Dr. Mason, studies, statistical analysis and peer reviewed information

not ONE of your claims regarding the horrors of nukes has come from anything other than "your gut" and fearmongering... not one has had a study, scientists or anything like scientific information

more to the point: not one of your claims answers the questions posited to you from factual evidence based argument

quit trying to redirect from your stupidity and answer, with evidence, the above questions as i have shown you're a liar with the same evidence
gkam
1 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2016
"1- performance reports only prove you were at least capable of doing your job, following orders and not f*cking up that is all... nothing more"
---------------------------------

Well, Trump, I guess I will have to put some of them down here, just to show others how twisted emotions can get you all in a tizzy and have you playing gotcha with yourself.

Then, you can post some of yours!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2016
I guess I will have to put some of them down here
how will posting proof that you sucked up in the military be evidence that nukes aren't safe?

tell us all that, first... *before* you post your evidence
(which, BTW, is already on photobucket here:
http://s1027.phot...p;page=1

PW= VALIDATE)

Then, you can post some of yours!
http://www.answer...internet

http://netsecurit...book.htm

so, to reiterate:how safe is nuclear energy vs solar roof panels?
how safe is it to be around nuclear energy in the plant?

which has greater exposure: being within 20 meters of the core of a nuke plant or flying at 30,000 (plus) feet for the same time?

which exposure would be greater: being a pilot? working for a nuke plant?

your silence is deafening! why no answers?
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2016
Let's get back to the topic of geothermal generation. Our own Geysers in California have operated for decades, and now get replentished with water from the sanitation district miles away. The steam is high in SOx and Arsenic and respirator fits need to be guaranteed to work there, in case of upset. I was only there once, on a Power Quality call.

But the West has great areas of potential heat source, for both utility grade and ground-coupled residential systems.
WillieWard
3 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2016
There are no reports of terrorists targeting wind farms or solar PV systems. Guess why.
It is because windmills are from middle ages, and islamic terrorists love dark ages, and want to put the whole world back to this age.
They are very similar, in some aspects, to Greenies.
http://www.forbes...-energy/
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2016
Let's get back to the topic of geothermal generation
@liar-kam
if that is the topic, why did you post about nukes and spread misinformation and lies, then link arguments about nuke plants being targeted by terrorists????

more to the point, why can't you answer some very basic easy requests for information which are directly related to your "expertise" and "experience"??

this is called a red herring and you are redirecting the conversation by creating a strawman to attack (fail) then adding in irrelevant info (fail) while then refusing to include how it relates to the topic (fail) but lastly, refusing to answer basic info that should be readily available to anyone on the net (fail)

(BTW - i did answer the questions i asked with my links... why can't you answer them at all, with your vast experience and knowledge?)

the silence and crickets are deafening

(PS - there are those who attacked windmills -see " El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha")

gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2016
I am waiting for proof of your assertions about your Truck license and your daughter with the alleged EE and PE. And those nuke questions were silly stuff from the IAEA or NRC, who do not like to hear about Fukushima, Chernobyl, Fermi I, SL-1, or the others they hide from us when they can.

Your "fire" questions were sophomoric - Why does water put out fire if it is made of H2 and O? Well if it is a white phosphorus fire, it won't.

Ever been to a geothermal site? Didn't think so. So why are you here?
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2016
I am waiting for proof of your assertions about your Truck license and your daughter
i asked you first, liar-kam

besides, i already gave you my license numbers which can be verified and validated through IFSAC and IAFF as well as through the USAF - just because you're inept doesn't mean everyone else is

more to the point:
my comments are directly relevant to the subject you introduced in the thread and are cogent as well as filled with evidence that refutes your claims

i am not arguing from authority, but from *evidence*
therefore, the authority of my license or my daughters PE is irrelevant unless you want to hire either one of us

i ask again:
how safe is nuclear energy vs solar roof panels?
how safe is it to be around nuclear energy in the plant?

which has greater exposure: being within 20 meters of the core of a nuke plant or flying at 30,000 (plus) feet for the same time?

.

.

.

[crickets]
the silence is deafening
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2016
Your "fire" questions were sophomoric - Why does water put out fire if it is made of H2 and O?
that wasn't the question at all, liar-kam
perhaps you should go back to school and learn how to read...
it is also from another thread, and considered SPAM in this thread
Well if it is a white phosphorus fire, it won't
of course, only you could create a strawman out of an argument posted to another thread you SPAM post replies on this one...
did you get temp-banned from the original thread?
Ever been to a geothermal site?
yep. Nesjavellir. Iceland. but that isn't relevant, is it?
Didn't think so
can't you read?
So why are you here?
to prove you are a liar and you don't know WTF you're talking about

and i succeeded with flying colours too

so, how safe is nuclear energy vs solar roof panels?
how safe is it to be around nuclear energy in the plant?

shall i continue or will you ever answer?

.

.

.

.

[crickets]
the silence is still deafening
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2016
No, Trumpy, you already lost. I am real and you are not. Instead, you are SCARED.

You saw no geothermal plants anywhere, because you are in the woods hiding. From whom and what do you hide? And why are you SCARED?

How safe is nuclear power? Go ask the parents of the Children of Chernobyl!
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
you already lost
@Liar-kam
lost what, exactly?

i proved above that you are a chronic lying delusional geriatric who doesn't have a firm grip on reality

i proved you post pseudoscience and you lie about your ability but try to force people to accept your knowledge under your "argument from authority" because you can't actually provide an evidence based argument for your claims

and i let *you yourself* prove everything above in your own words
that is why you can't answer any questions
You saw no geothermal plants
so you didn't look up the Nesjavellir, Iceland plant? there is one in Klammath Falls, OR as well i've been to, but don't let evidence actually get in the way of your claims, eh?
How safe is nuclear power?
like i said, you're a lying POS who has NO evidence backing your claims

you should watch the vid links above in my first post which answers your questions

funny you can't actually answer mine
LMFAO

.

.

your silence is still deafening
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
How safe is nuclear power? Go ask the parents of the Children of Chernobyl!


It is safer than other types of power. By the numbers.

Now it is your turn. Let me ask you back,,,,,

How safe is riding in a car? Go ask the parents of the childrens who died in car crashes. (It is a lot more dangerous than living near a nuclear plant.)

How safe is riding on the Amtrak? Go ask the relatives of peoples who died in train wrecks. (But it is more dangerous by the numbers than living near a nuclear plant.)

How safe are workers in the solar power industries? Go ask the relatives of somebody who got died doing something to do with it. (https://www.osha....ar.html)

Instead of repeating over and over your hysterical,,,
How safe is nuclear power? Go ask the parents of the Children of Chernobyl!
,,,,,, maybe you should see how nuclear stacks up against other things you are not sloganeering about here.

antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2016
It is safer than other types of power.


I think the argument should be more along the line of:
Is a car safer? Maybe not but it is a choice of each individual to take that risk.
Is nuclear safer? Maybe it is but people are being put at risk without being asked whether they would prefer a less risky alternative

In the end safety in cars is a constant thing: X number of people get killed per year. Each year this causes y dollars damage.
Nuclear safety is a cocaine effect: with each accident x square miles become uninhabitable (or x cubic meters are needed as waste dump). This accumulates because the radiation doesn't go away in an appreciable amount of time. So each year it's not a constant damage but an ever accumulating amount of damage/cost.

An accumulating amount of (low incident/low cost) damage beats a constant amount of (high incident/high cost) damage over time. Badly. To a point where going back is not an option, which makes it doubly worse.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
"like i said, you're a lying POS who has NO evidence backing your claims"
------------------------------------

Thank you for that display of your character.

How many times do we have to go through this, Trumpy/Ira/otto? I mentioned I worked on aircraft with rocket engines and you called me a liar. I sent some of you the fromnt page of the newspaper of the entire Air force Flight Test Center (which includes Groom Lake, what the goobers call Area 51), showing I was Airman of the Month for all of it.

You folks called me a "LIAR" for discussing my involvement in putting together proving, deploying and operating the Electronic Battlefield, until I sent you to three military websites with my name and/or picture on them.

You three screamed "LIAR and BULLSHIT" when I said I did the graphite studies and reports for NASA, until I sent you three the entire NASA catalog with my name on page 41.

Shall we get into Power Quality and EPRI?
Guy_Underbridge
3.5 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2016
The entire comments section of this thread is filled with gkam's anti-nuke boner, Stumpy's anti-gkam boner, and something minor from Willie... with Uncle and Auntie rounding out like an old married couple...

Meanwhile, the Italians are showing the US how to do Solar...
gkam
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2016
Sorry, Guy, but my limited experience and greater knowledge of nuclear power has informed my opinion. I got it from helping test safety components of the same kind of GE BWR as in Fukushima. I think it is relevant. How did you get your opinion?

The trio of otto and Ira and Stumpy is the regular band of snipers and trolls here. They use pseudonyms and nasty verbiage to bully others, who will be bullied. We will put an end to it, but it takes time.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
"Meanwhile, the Italians are showing the US how to do Solar..."
-------------------------------

They have done nothing since that plant generations ago. My house runs on solar, and my car, too. Show me how many Italians do that.
Guy_Underbridge
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2016
Not many, and that's what I find funny.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
"Funny"?
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2016
An accumulating amount of (low incident/low cost) damage beats a constant amount of (high incident/high cost) damage over time. Badly. To a point where going back is not an option, which makes it doubly worse.
Which is why nuclear should be number four on the list of things to get rid of.

1) Gas,
2) Oil,
3) Coal,
4) Nuclear,

It's all a matter of perspective. What has done the most harm? What is doing the most harm? What will be the most harmful in the long term? Gas, oil, coal lead nuclear in all the three, done, doing and will do the most harm.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
" Gas, oil, coal lead nuclear in all the three, done, doing and will do the most harm."
--------------------------------

And where would your boat be without them?

What are you doing about it?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2016
t's all a matter of perspective.

I agree. But you can't put it categorically at number four. Doing harm is a percentage thing to a society. Nuclear is a potential game ender for a society.

I'll make an analogy with stock markets:
You can make small AVERAGE wins within a certain timeframe with little variance
But you can make huge AVERAGE wins - but with huge variance

Now anyone would argue: So take huge risks. Bigger average wins in the same timeframe is better, right? Well...only if you have unlimited cash reserves. In the case of nuclear: unlimited land. Because if you lose all your cash/land then you don't get to play anymore.

Look at a map of industrialized nations. Many are very small. They would get in trouble with their neighbors if one of their nuclear powerplants would happen to contaminate their soil.

Risking game over scenarios is not a sensible strategy if you're playing the long game. Neither is generating exponential expenses for constant gain.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2016
Think of Chernobyl. This is in an era (1986) where nuclear wasn't as wide spread. Radiation doesn't stop at borders. You still can't go and pick wild mushrooms for consumption or take wild boar meat in germany 1000km away. (radiation values are roughly 7000bq/kg and 10000bq/kg respectively....official safety limits for consumption are 600bq/kg - which some argue is way too lenient.)

If we want to make nuclear a real contributor then we're talking many, many more powerplants. This means a lot more possibilities for stuff to go wrong. Technological safeguards won't help because accidents like these were due to human error where safeguards were actively circumvented. So we extrapolate the probabilities and get to a picture that makes no sense: Short term fix with near certain long term irradiation of vast areas.

It's not even an either/or choice (get rid of nuclear OR coal OR gas OR oil).
We have the renewable tech to get rid of all of them at once.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
aa is right, and these are not just interesting but exciting times in energy/environmental fields.

The environment will be our energy supply, as it used to be. We have finally found ways to outgrow fossil fuels, and return back to nature, but in a world more engineered for us sustainably.

Brute-forcing Nature is silly. Working with and within the Natural World is better.
WillieWard
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2016
It would be an important step when we finally get rid of bird-choppers/landscape-destroyers, and replace it with carbon-free ecologically friendly nuclear power, nature will thank us.
http://capitolhil...bles.jpg
http://cdn.specta...8033.jpg
https://assets.we...5KHI.jpg
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
that display of your character
@liar-kam
labeling you isn't poor character when i've used evidence and your own words to prove that you are a chronic liar who can't substantiate his fearmongering claims about nukes
I worked on
irrelevant, OT, argument from unproven authority & redirection - this is about Nuke safety stats, not where you worked
the rest of your BS is also irrelevant OT redirect
my limited experience and greater knowledge of nuclear power has informed my opinion
if you were informed, why didn't you know nuke has a far better safety record than solar power or wind power?
why don't you know about the overall safety of nukes?

.

.

comments section
@Guy
true - can't argue with you there

but to allow liar-kam to spread misinformation as factual under his self-perceived D-K authority that doesn't exists IRL means to spread pseudoscience

watch this -it's why i countered him in the first place
https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2016
We have the renewable tech to get rid of all of them at once
@AA_P
you know, i agree with this but i also disagree with this

we may have the tech, but it will cost a bundle not only to replace the tech existing but also to replace the infrastructure, which is where the hesitation of the gov't comes in from (and the commercial ventures, etc)

in fact, it is the reason that the typical person doesn't replace their current E- generation

that and the fact that we've become lazy, really

using strictly solar and wind, i know that i have to monitor my output and drain while recharging in the day, especially on days like today with little sun and low wind

It also means changing how i use things like fans, air conditioners, TV, computers and other appliances which are electricity drains in a house - they truly suck energy (anything that is an electric motor, has a transformer or uses electricity for heat will kill batteries in no time and must be monitored regularly)

gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
We make our electricity, too, but do not need batteries, special maintenance, or the need to watch what we use. It is because we are part of society, tapped into the grid, which we feed, and it feeds us. That is why we have it.

Screaming at others from the woods may make you feel better, but it does nothing for your quality of life.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
Screaming at others from the woods
@liar-kam
this is called ad hominem attack and promotion of emotional stupidity over factual science and evidence based argument

do you have an evidence based scientific reference that refutes the evidence i posted above?

can you demonstrate that the world statistics posted in the link i gave are incorrect, or is that a conspiracy?

can you demonstrate that the PhD scientists who i linked above, who works regularly with Neutron scattering, is wrong in his statements about nukes?

can you provide any (*any*) evidence at all that demonstrates your emotional rant to be accurate and my argument from evidence to be wrong?

no?

still silent on that one?

ok then... reported for posting pseudoscience
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2016
I agree. But you can't put it categorically at number four. Doing harm is a percentage thing to a society.[/q[

You can if you look beyond a single or two catastrophic disasters. The long term disasters are overlooked because they bore the news cycles. Gas, oil and coal are much more harmful in the long run.

Nuclear is a potential game ender for a society.
Gas and oil are certain game enders for my society. I don't have to worry about what could potentially happen. I can look right out my window and see what is certainly happening, Day in and day out too. Every day with non break. Week after week. Year after year for as long as I have been living. Coal mining is just as certain for others.

Millions and millions and even more millions of square kilometers are dependent on the oceans and the wetlands, not just us that live in them. For every square kilometer of wetlands we lose out of my backyard, hundreds and hundreds of square kilometers feel the effect.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
It's not even an either/or choice (get rid of nuclear OR coal OR gas OR oil).
We have the renewable tech to get rid of all of them at once.
You preaching to the choir Cher, I agree. I think we should spend what ever it takes to do it.

But you and me are just you and me. Humans are tribal animals. Trying to make other tribes do what is good for them and us is more often than not is a grand source of misere. It's been something we have failed at since our ancestor fell out of the trees.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
" Gas, oil, coal lead nuclear in all the three, done, doing and will do the most harm."
--------------------------------

And where would your boat be without them?
Pulled up on the bank waiting for me to take him out fishing or trapping.

What are you doing about it?
I do what I can Cher, what I can.

Skippy, you are a moron with your silly demanding "What you did?" and "Who you are?" and "What you know?".

If you can 't think of something smart to say why you don't give it a rest instead of being the grumpy elderly man who is angry and frustrated that he can't say anything witty or smart so he trolls with snide angry slogans.
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
Why don't you do something other than criticize others?

At least I do something about my situation, while you just gripe at others. Tell us what insight your education and experience in geothermal power gave you.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
Tell us what insight your education and experience in geothermal power gave you.

My education and experience give to me insight enough not to litter up the interweb with slogans and activist one-liners that sound like stuffs Sarah Palin would say.

It also give to me insight enough not to go to the science site and pretend to be seven or six different kinds of engineer while I am flinging out "science and facts" that just are not so and when somebody calls me on it, get mad at them and tell him it doesn't count because I have education and experience and the guy who calls me on it doesn't count being right because he is a goober.

So, if it is all the same to you, my "insight" from my "education and experience" is the one I will keep and hope not to ever get burdened with your "insight" from your "education and experience". You get to many things wrong, and look really silly trying to tell us it doesn't count if you were wrong because you have "education and experience"
gkam
1 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
Just go look at the potential geothermal resources. With those and other systems and sources we do not need coal or oil or nukes.

If you had consulted in Power Quality in the Geysers and had first hand experience, would you hide it? I thought it pertinent, since I was in the business.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2016
we may have the tech, but it will cost a bundle not only to replace the tech existing but also to replace the infrastructure, which is where the hesitation of the gov't comes in from (and the commercial ventures, etc)

Sure. Its one of these 'investment in the future' kinda things.
(Note that e.g. the renewable energy sector in germany already employs about more than half as many people as the automotive sector. Which is pretty big over here). Markets change. Renewables will be on the wish list of many countries in the future - especially those without funds for paying for fossil fuels indefinitely. So it may be costly up front - but the experience and expertise you gain can pay off in the long run handsomely with jobs and exports.

As I just posted elsewhere: Politicians don't have that long a horizon. The will to do this must originate with the people (as it did e.g. in germany). It must become a "do this or we won't vote for you" affairs.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 30, 2016
it is the reason that the typical person doesn't replace their current E- generation

that and the fact that we've become lazy

The weird thing is that it isn't hard to do. Call up your energy provider and change your plan to one that mandates them to buy/generate as many kWh as you use from renewable sources. Takes all of 5 minutes. Might cost a bit more than your regular plan but not massively so.

If enough people do this then that will put enormous pressure on providers to put up renewables.

"Grassroots" actions work. I've seen in my lifetime how such pressure can reshape an entire industry from "no one will do this" to "hmmm...suddenly almost everyone is doing it and the benefits are awesome". I'm talking about recycling here in germany. The way garbage has disappeared from...basically eveywhere...when it was strewn all accross the landscape a few decades ago is amazing. And the effort each person puts in is minimal.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 30, 2016
You can if you look beyond a single or two catastrophic disasters. The long term disasters are overlooked because they bore the news cycles. Gas, oil and coal are much more harmful in the long run.

In summation? yes. But they don't end countries. One Chernobly type desaster in germany and there is no longer a country called germany. That is an unacceptably high risk for a negligible gain. Countries like Russia, India, the US or China may see this differently. If a state in the midwest becomes irradiated the US does not cease to exist (and probably no one would notice)

I am not defending coal/oil/gas, here - or even think them 'preferrable' to nuclear. But replacing coal/oil/gas with nuclear is just a nonsensical move in most parts of the world. You'd be replacing a bad source with another bad source.

I think we should spend what ever it takes to do it.

Money is limited. I think pumping it into renewables is better than pumping it into nuclear by any metric.
antigoracle
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2016
The entire comments section of this thread is filled with gkam's anti-nuke boner, Stumpy's anti-gkam boner, and something minor from Willie... with Uncle and Auntie rounding out like an old married couple...

Meanwhile, the Italians are showing the US how to do Solar...

Someone's got penis envy. Of course being a little dick, you run around down voting comments that expose your ignorance and up vote the stupidity you mention above.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2016
So it may be costly up front
@AA_P
this is a major factor for a lot of poor folk... and considering most of the planet is poor compared to even my income, yet i am poor compared to most of the US, and it was a major problem to come up with good stuff for me, then it is a serious problem to overcome
i recycled a lot of stuff, mind you... i got paid to haul it off and i used to to build what i needed = win-win
Call up your energy provider
only works when you have one, though...LOL
there is no infrastructure up here. closest is more than a mile away. not complaining, mind you... but there are a lot of rural areas where this is a costly venture
a lot of our co-op power co's are good about promoting it here though, and have payment plans, so that is a plus
But they don't end countries
aww... c'mon AA_P

nuke plants don't blow up like in the movies, and the risk is far less dangerous today with current tech and the advancements made to date
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2016
@AA_P cont'd
But replacing coal/oil/gas with nuclear is just a nonsensical move in most parts of the world. You'd be replacing a bad source with another bad source
yeah, i can agree with this

one thing that comes to mind, though... when you talk about commercial power consumption, you need a reliable source of good energy, which is why coal/gas/oil/nuke has been so popular... so that is a major drawing point to certain areas as well

if it is mostly residential use, i would promote solar/wind over everything else
of course, that also depends on the environment and needs of the user, so...
Money is limited. I think pumping it into renewables is better than pumping it into nuclear by any metric
not sure i agree with this

i do think we need to put a lot more into renewable, but considering our current needs, i also think ignoring the nuke option (for the US) is foolhardy, especially with the pollution of our current plants and the commercial drains
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2016
"nuke plants don't blow up like in the movies, "
-----------------------------------------

The only movies of nuclear plants I have seen blowing up are the ones at Fukushima.

And Chernobyl blew up "like in the movies".

Want proof? You always want "proof". So tell us who you are for "proof" and stop cowering in the woods. Stand up to your pathetic fears.

Meanwhile, want the URLs of some nuclear damage?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2016
The only movies of nuclear plants I have seen blowing up are the ones at Fukushima
And Chernobyl blew up "like in the movies"
yeah, that mushroom cloud and the total devastation out to miles around the city are noticeable from space... [sarcastic hyperbole]

Meanwhile, want the URLs of some nuclear damage?
argument from emotion and not rational discussion of actual representation of reality
lets look at reality overall, worldwide
not singular outlier events

http://physics.ke...re15.pdf

https://www.youtu...yv9arXqU

https://www.youtu...xY-wOrI8

https://www.youtu...rcdMiIGs

https://www.youtu...Zm8XO7Zc
italba
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2016
"Meanwhile, the Italians are showing the US how to do Solar..."
-------------------------------

They have done nothing since that plant generations ago. My house runs on solar, and my car, too. Show me how many Italians do that.

Quite a lot, thank you. Look at http://www.iea-pv...2014.pdf . Anyway, this Nevada power plant is something more than a few PW panels on a roof.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Apr 02, 2016
Why are we even discussing the risks of nuclear energy on a thread about combining geothermal energy with solar energy?

Just askin'.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2016
Why are we even discussing the risks of nuclear energy on a thread about combining geothermal energy with solar energy?

Just askin'.
@Schneib

gracie

gracie says if you have a nuke plant it will blow up, kill off the populations, and will never replace solar because Chernobyl and Fukushima and solar/wind is safer because no terrorists will ever target them and they're safer than nukes

yeah
boring

but funny to watch
gkam
1 / 5 (4) Apr 03, 2016
"Why are we even discussing the risks of nuclear energy on a thread about combining geothermal energy with solar energy?"
----------------------------------

To highlight the differences.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.